not all differences are differences in value
Posted on October 23, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Emerging Questions
“The two most popular philosophies of sexuality today seem totally opposed to each other; yet at a most basic level they are in agreement and are equally mistaken. The two philosophies are the old chauvinism and the new egalitarianism; and they seem totally opposed. For chauvinism (a) sees one sex as superior to the other, “second”, sex. This is usually the male, but there are increasingly many strident female chauvinist voices in the current cacophony. This presupposes (b) that the sexes are intrinsically different, different by nature not social convention. Egalitarianism tries to disagree with (a) totally; it thinks that to do so it has to disagree with (b) as well. But this means that it agrees with chauvinism on (c), the unstated but assumed premise that all dfferences must be dfferences in value, or, correlatively, that the only way for two things to be equal in value is for them to be equal in nature. Both philosophies see sameness or superiority as the only options. It is from this assumption (that differences are differences in value) that the chauvinist argues that the sexes are different in nature, therefore they are different in value. And it is from the same assumption that the egalitarian argues that the sexes are not different in value, therefore they are not different in nature.”
- Peter Kreeft: “Is There Sex In Heaven“
When you have a spare moment, take a read of Kreeft’s essay - it covers a much wider area than the slither I’ve quoted. This will be my last word on the whole feminism thing for the time being (although if you wanted to submit something yourself, you’re very welcome), but I did want to pass on the above quote to highlight an area which I think has been a stumbling block for people to be willing to take on the feminist cause in churches. Because the assumption has been that taking on the cause of gender “equality” has to mean that men and women are the same.
So once we accept that there are differences between men and women - not differences of value but differences nevertheless; there is a temptation to use those differences to justify relegating women back into the same roles and positions as they’ve always been in. We’ve probably all heard it: people mis-appropriating the church as body to justify why we keep women away from leadership and teaching roles. So, the big question is: what do you do about it?
About Geoff Matheson
Geoff is a 23 year old database administrator who has birthed amateurtheology.org from some crazy thoughts he had early one Monday morning. Geoff does his best to sound lots smarter than he actually is. He also runs some youth stuff at Yarra Valley Vineyard, and he is married to the very lovely Rebecca.
Geoff's site: http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/
Comments
11 Responses to “not all differences are differences in value”
Leave a Reply
Jesus was financially supported by women. Jesus openly spoke and taught women. Jesus ate with women. If we can learn to no longer be conformed to the pattern of this world when it comes to how we regard members of the other gender the way Jesus did, what a marvelous community we can form. Thanks for the thoughts.
wow that’s actually a really tidy little explination. I like it!
As for “what do we do about it?”… that seems a lot more involved! I guess it depends on who, and where you are. If people are already active in addressing prejudice and injustice then possibly all that is required is listening and support…
But what about in a community where there is no voice for equality, because all the voices have been bullied into submission?
Me? I keep acknowledging the complementarian view. I think Kreeft is wrong in that I think we can have differences in sexes that do not lead to differences in value. I also think, unlike you, that these differences can lead to differences in roles - again without differences in value.
While I disagree with your view, I see how you get there and respect that. I do not share the same for Kreeft.
As I understand it Kreeft was arguing that there is no value difference between the sexes, only differences in nature, which is the essence of the complementarian argument.
Ah … so then I’m agreeing with Kreeft? Man … I’m just not smart enough to be on the internet …
I think a major problem arises when by promoting the idea that there are differences between men and women one assumes those differences are static and apply to everyone. Talk of differences leads to defining the way men and women “are” which of course gets projected onto all men and all women in every culture throughout history. So even if differences in nature do exist the branding of certain differences onto the group as a whole leads to serious issues.
If a man of woman doesn’t fit the assumed role imposed upon them because other in their gender exhibit that tendency and so therefore it was assumed to apply to everyone in that gender, they are considered odd. They are not allowed to be who God created them to be because they do not fit what culture assumes them to be.
So I have no problem admitting that men and women are different as long as it is not assumed that all men and all women are different in exactly the same ways always. Given that, I generally avoid trying to speak of differences because of the severe misunderstanding that has caused. I like speaking of equality because then people are not forced into boxes and are equally allowed to be whoever God made them to be.
Everyone - read Julie’s comment.
Julie do you think there are any merits in outlining generalised differences between the sexes?
Reinhard - My answer is maybe. To take the recently popular books that outlines gender differences for Christians - Wild at Heart and Captivating. I know people who read those books and found something in them that connected with them deeply. They were able to put to words for the first time why they were the way they were. Those books inspired them and deepened their faith by allowing them to understand that their gender identify was okay and a valuable part of why they are.
But if such books (or any such discussions) are taken as absolute with no qualifications things can get ugly. I participated in a book study of Captivating with mostly women who were seeing themselves reflected on every page. When a couple of us brought up that certain descriptions of the way women are didn’t exactly fit us, we were met with anger. The other women believed that these gender differences were the way God had made all women and could never be questioned. We were questioning God if we questioned the gender differences they had identified with. There were a couple of us in the group that have degrees in intercultural studies and tried to explain that what we often think are universal feminine characteristics are really just particular to middle and upper class Westerners. That didn’t go over too well.
So I think the discussion can at times have merit, but I would plead that it never be presented as absolute or done without qualifications.
Wow Julie, its really nice to hear someone else had a similar experience with the Eldridges as I have. While I do find a lot of what they have to say very valuable, I was a little concerned that John didn’t do enough to warn men of the perils assosciated with a ‘rescuer’ mentality.
My concern being that the idea of men being strong and women being week creates a need for that power dynamic to be perpetuated so that the man can feel like he is doing his ‘rescuer’ duty, and the woman can continue to feel that she has a ’saviour’. In relationships where there is already a history of abuse or control, these are the kinds of ideas that often underpin and shelter the motivations for those behaviours. When I mention this, most people look at me like I’m a talking bannana.
I think any kind of critical theory in general is terrifying to traditional religious christianity… although I’m not sure that it presents any real threat to following Christ.
How do we go about challenging people to reflect on their assumptions (and how those assumptions alienate others) without simply creating fear and conflict?